It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I meant Connery simply as an actor. You can't compare them in acting ability but Lazenby worked a lot better in OHMSS than Connery would have done because as you say, his portrayal had become a 'wisecracking superman'
Now years later, people everywhere can look at the subject and we all seem to agree:
Connery was not right in 1968-69 and could never have pulled off this superb film.
In some ways, this kind of meaningful story is best told with a 'fresh' actor, as was also the case with CR, come to think of it. A clean slate in the audience's mind, as it were.
On the OP's question, I don't think Lazenby could've been better than Connery, though I really like Lazenby in OHMSS, and I admit that's the only thing I've seen him in. Connery's talent was natural, he had good "range", and that range allowed him to headline Bond stories over several years.
I do however, find that he brought something to his portrayal of Bond. The script gave him the chance to give us a vulnerable Bond, unlike what we've seen before, and he solved that brilliantly. The other thing I find interesting with his portrayal, is how brutal his fights are. Where Connery's fighting is brutal, yet controlled, Lazenby's fighting's more (in lack of a better word) incalculable, and therefore more dangerous.
I think Lazenby could have been a real good Bond. Better than Connery? Perhaps not. But he brought an element of danger that could not be matched until Craig's portrayal of Bond in CR.
His arrogance is what cost him.
I simply don t understand this criticism. He isn t too good with some of the lighthearted stuff, but you can say the same about Dalton and Craig.
I'm not saying "de worst acting evah", but if the rest of the move wasn't as good as it turned out to be...
He thought that "to play Bond I must become an over the top arrogant ruthless bastard".
1) Bond visits charms Miss Taro in her house, he is dominant with her in bed and then finds out she's part of No's scheme to kill Bond. He calls the police.
2) Bond kills Professor Dent.
3) Bond mocking No at the dinner table "Our asylums are full of people that think they're God."
I'd say those examples represent the ultimate personification of the film Bond. The first film got it so right. Obviously the writers have to take a lot of credit, Doctor No is a wonderful screenplay, and Connery nailed it in a genius like way. Had Moore starred in Doctor No he may have captured that vibe. Sometimes it's down to luck and good timing. Connery got the role first so had an advantage.
I don't think Lazenby would have been a better Bond in terms of capturing Bond's hard, cold approach to his job. Connery nailed it first - that's just the way it was - but it's possible, given decent scripts, Lazenby could have been a more rounded, human Bond than Connery's version. I guess Lazenby could have outdone Connery in the human stakes aspect of Bond's personality. Lazenby's Bond out for revenge in DAF, perhaps Bond finding a new love to replace Tracy in DAF? We'll never know what could have been!
Things were changing in the 1970s. I don't think Broccoli and Saltzman would have wanted to explore Bond's more human side. They explored it in OHMSS because that's what Fleming put down on paper, but I can't imagine several Lazenby 70s films depicting an emotional Bond. Lazenby's Bond is so weird when you look at the entire franchise. It's a brief moment in time and then gone. Could he have become a more Moore type Bond had he continued? Would he have stuck closer to the Connery mould? I have no idea.
George was dealt a bad hand and then compounded the bad hand by making his own mistakes.
Nail on the head.
With his debut in 1962’s Dr. No, Connery memorably laid the foundation for a 007 that has withstood the test of time. With his rugged good looks, charm and charisma, Connery set the sophisticated style of how Bond looked, dressed, wooed women, drank, used a gun and drove a car.
He was playful one minute and ruthless the next; a refined tough guy that also infused the role with wry humor and knowing looks. He went on to star in six more James Bond movies, cementing how we think of the on-screen character. He’s come to represent the epitome of 007, and every other Bond since Connery can’t help but be compared to him. Plus, as portrayed by Connery, James Bond was selected as the third-greatest hero in cinema history by the American Film Institute.
Lazenby did an admirable job in a brilliant film. But his voice, swagger, Australian heritage, inferior acting ability/ screen presence make him inferior to Connery. OHMSS could be the best Bond film, but Connery is the best Bond.
I wouldn't want to have missed out on Roger's tenure, but it interesting to contemplate the direction that the franchise would have taken with Lazenby; it would have been much more physical with less cheeky humor.
On the other hand, I just think that overdubbing his voice was always going to be fatal. When it's done really well (see Frobe in GF) it can work in small doses. But anchoring your franchise with a guy who literally doesn't speak his own lines? Unsustainable.